The Question: Jeremiah Wright's sermons continue to be an issue in the presidential campaign. Why? What do you think of his preaching style? What do you wish you understood better about it?

The media tend to focus mainly on the incendiary and the divisive because it makes a better story. There are thousands of African American churches, from storefronts, to traditional looking buildings in which faithful pastors preach the age-old Gospel of Christ without the putrid anointing oil of politics. The media ignore them, leaving the impression -- especially among whites who don't visit black churches -- that African American churches are mostly hotbeds of black liberation theology and anti-American screeds. The black churches I have attended and the black pastors I know are the antithesis of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, but they are never interviewed on TV which prefers rhetorical bomb throwers.

All politicians tell people what they want to hear, rather than what they need to hear. Too many care about themselves and perpetuating their political careers more than promoting the general welfare. If that is their goal, a certain diagnosis of their character has already been made.
The key is discovering whether a presidential candidate has a core set of principles from which he (or she) will not deviate except under the most extreme of circumstances. Moral character is important, though people sometimes define such things according to their own moral standards.

I don't like labels because it allows others to define me based on their understanding (or misunderstanding) of the label. The early followers of Jesus were called "Christians" by those who were not. The unbelievers needed a label. There is nothing wrong with that word, but it means different things to different people. I prefer "follower of Jesus." Most people ask "what does that mean?" The question allows for an answer, but words like "evangelical," "fundamentalist" even "born again" (which is biblical but, again, misused and misunderstood) rarely produce questions.

I wasn't aware of a demand for an "evangelical manifesto." Everything a follower of Jesus needs is in God's Word. It seems to me to be another attempt to "fit-in" with the world at some level. Instead, "evangelicals" ought to be fitting-in with God and His agenda, which is redemption, not reforming a fallen planet.

It is both a sacred and a legal right. Marriage was instituted by God (see Matthew 19:56 and Genesis 2:24, the verse quoted by Jesus from Genesis). The state has an interest in preserving social order to "promote the general welfare." The problem for conservative Christians in an increasingly secular, even anti-Christian environment (which is forecast in Scripture) is this: there is no biblical expectation that those who do not believe in God will follow the ways of God. One might as well attempt to impose the rules of baseball on a basketball game. In short, the world does what the world does and is unlikely to be persuaded to do otherwise through politics or law, though again, the law has a role in conforming even unbelievers to a social order that benefits the general population. But if growing numbers in the political and legal system refuse to adhere to the moral law, what then?

Another thing: If conservatives believe so strongly in the "sanctity of marriage" (including heterosexual presidential candidates -- past and present -- who have had more than one wife) why don't they impose that standard on themselves? Doing so would give them a lot more influence when speaking of the importance of opposite sex marriage and opposing same-sex "marriage."

This is not to justify same-sex "marriage," which is an impossibility unless one redefines the word, which many are trying to do. It is simply to say that in a sinful and wicked world, sinners and wicked people behave as, well, sinful and wicked people. As Paul wrote, "they invent ways of doing evil." (see Romans 1:8-32)